In this age of proliferation of psychoanalytic theories (“pluralism”), how are we to do a good job of teaching candidates what psychoanalytic thinking is all about? Are we currently doing a good job? Is psychoanalytic thinking, as taught in our institutes and training centers, in contact and interacting with the important developments and advances in other 21st century scientific and intellectual currents that intersect with our domain? Given that, according to practice surveys over several decades, most graduate analysts spend most of their professional time engaged in treatments and/or activities other than the traditional psychoanalytic method, are we conceptualizing psychoanalytic education in the most relevant, realistic and effective fashion?
I first posed these questions to the Executive Council at the Chicago meeting in preparation for their vote authorizing the creation of the Department of Psychoanalytic Education in APsaA. I now reiterate this inquiry for the readers of this column in order to underscore the decisions before us in the changing APsaA.
Change does not come easily. As psychoanalysts we are immersed in this fact. We know it is difficult for any individual to relinquish well-known, well-hewn patterns of perception and reaction, preferred attitudes and recognizable structures. This is arguably even more the case for groups and organizations than for individuals. Nonetheless, we are currently in the midst of an attempt to transform our own organization in the face of long-standing traditions and practices and some modes of operation many consider outmoded. Furthermore, it is most likely that we do not all agree on the need for these shifts. It is well established that the one matter on which we all agree is that we cannot even muster an agreement on what constitutes an analytic process—or by extension, what is a psychoanalyst? How, then, can we conceptualize the contemporary, psychoanalytic educational task?
Perhaps it would be more precise to speak of the evolution of our field rather than to focus singularly on the issue of change. I say this because the notion of evolution implies a development in which history is not entirely ignored or refuted, but transformed in nature according to the demands of adaptation. Have the conceptualization and structure of psychoanalytic educational programs adapted to the contemporary scene? In a recent issue of JAPA, Otto Kernberg and Robert Michels, along with a number of commentators from within and outside APsaA, suggest different ways in which we must alter our views and activities in these efforts. We are forced to acknowledge that for too long in our more than a century-old discipline, a psychoanalyst was regarded as a person who spent most or all of one’s professional time “doing” clinical psychoanalysis. We must also acknowledge that this has been a poorly rationalized but enduring myth.
Some of our ranks have followed this path; others have pursued careers in which they have brought their psychoanalytic knowledge into other arenas, often having been dismissed or told privately that their careers would be judged adversely in comparison to the idealized myth.
Even Freud was skeptical about the place of the traditional clinical method in the future of mental health treatments. Many, if not most of us, believe that for selected conditions, it is still and will remain the treatment of choice. But if it is to remain such, we must develop our understanding of psychoanalytic technique and process according to advances from other disciplines in understanding human mental functioning, and acknowledge as equally important the various ways in which psychoanalysis is applied outside the consulting room. The traditional analytic treatment method is, then, just one of the many applications of psychoanalytic thinking.
This will…lead to increasing diversity in all aspects of APsaA, different paradigms, philosophies, ethnicities and professional backgrounds.
It, thus, becomes incumbent on us to expand our thinking about what constitutes psychoanalytic education in order to enable students to be prepared for different kinds of psychoanalytic careers. The university model is suggested by this, in which students begin with a core curriculum and then choose different paths of academic specialization. Something of this sort is already appearing on the current scene, such as in Chicago and Emory.
In keeping with this philosophy of current and future needs of and for the field, those of us working on the recommendations for the DPE have tried to develop a model that will take into account the multifold directions and interactions with other domains that will nourish our development as a discipline and overcome our present isolation. In doing so, we are being ever mindful of our rich history, preserving the best of educational practices we have inherited, while creating room for open and creative discourse and courses of action.
To this end, the model we have proposed provides for two bodies, the Psychoanalytic Training and Education Forum (PTEF) and the Psychoanalytic Scholarship Forum (PSF). The PTEF will be constituted by institute representatives. It will function as the place of deliberations and exchanges that are most proximal to the consideration and delivery of education and training at the APsaA-approved institutes. The PSF is envisioned as a place for exchange of any ideas pertaining to psychoanalytic inquiry, for continuous enrichment of psychoanalytic thought, dissemination of its relevance to the neighboring scientific and cultural fields, and educational update. Study groups will form according to the proposed areas of inquiry. All interested members and/or institute representatives will be invited to contribute and to participate. There would be ongoing exchange between the PTEF and PSF for mutual feedback and enhancement.
This will, no doubt, lead to increasing diversity in all aspects of APsaA, different paradigms, philosophies, ethnicities and professional backgrounds. It can also provide us the freedom to seek and perhaps even try on new modes of thinking, while respecting the most solid and enduring wisdom and accomplishments of our past.
Diversity will bring disagreement. Disagreement can, and hopefully will, bring freshness to the general discourse. Preserving the important discoveries in the history of our work will provide depth. Then and only then can we feel ensconced in the intellectual flow of the 21st century in all the many applications of psychoanalytic thinking, clinical and otherwise.
May the Force be with us.
From the Psychoanalytic Education Editor
The inauguration of the TAP “Issues in Psychoanalytic Education” column corresponds to the formation of the Department of Psychoanalytic Education (DPE) at APsaA. The DPE, which will come into being in June 2017, will aim to secure the delivery of high quality training and education at APsaA through approved institutes in the atmosphere of vigorous institute representation, interdisciplinary enrichment, collegial exchange and mutual edification. A task force, chaired by Erik Gann, has been at work to articulate the functions and define the structures in the service of this mission. In this column, Gann offers his view on what animates, guides and shapes this effort.
—Luba Kessler
Issues in Psychoanalytic Education Editor